Lessons Learned about the Literacy Instruction of English Language Learners from Several Research Studies Georgia Earnest Garc í a University of Illinois.

Lessons Learned about the Literacy Instruction of English Language Learners from Several

Research Studies

Georgia Earnest GarcíaUniversity of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign

International Research Association, May 2005

Purpose

To aggregate qualitative findings from four research studies to discuss and identify positive and negative features of literacy instruction for English Language Learners (Mandarin, Spanish, Turkish speakers)

1. Rationale for Purpose

2. Lit Review and Research Questions

3. List of Studies

4. Instructional Findings

5. Implications

Rationale

García (2000) called for longitudinal research on literacy development of English Language Learners in two languages that takes into account

• different types of instruction• settings in which students are taught• social and contextual factors

Sociocultural Perspective

• Content (focus of instruction and activity definition)

• Process (how instruction is executed, timing, location)

• Social interactions

• Participants’ identities and motivation

(Hernández, 1989; Moll, 1990; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Wersch, 1985)

Review of instructional literature

• Whole class, teacher directed, passive instruction (Ramírez, Yuen, & Ramey,1991; Padrón, 1994)

• Untrained teachers, large class sizes (Moss & Puma, 1995)

• Combining literature-based instruction with quality ESL can be effective for strong L1 readers (Elley, 1991)

Lit review cont.• Did not comprehend instruction or literacy

assignments in all English settings (Brock, et al.; Schmidt, 1993).

• Early literacy activities seemed to work but lower vocab (Fitzgerald & Noblit, 2000), used sheltered instruction, but unexplained variability

• Effective use of ESL techniques to shelter storybook reading (Carger, 1993)

• Effective use of L1 support--preview, clarifications, participate in either language (Battle, 1993)

Lit review cont.• Improved participation when allowed to use

Spanish and English (Moll, et. al, 1980, 2001; Gutiérrez, et. al, 1997)

• CALLA, but not really tested yet (Chamot & O’Malley, 1996)

Research Questions :

1. What characterizes the literacy instruction of English language learners in different instructional settings?

2. What factors influence students’ literacy instruction and development?

3. What are the positive and negative features of instruction for English

language learners?

List of Studies1. 1st-2nd grade Spanish speakers’ literacy

instruction in Spanish and ESL classes

2. 1st-grade Turkish speakers’ oral language, literacy instruction and development in Turkish, ESL, all English

3. Mandarin and Spanish speakers’ writing instruction and development (4, 5, 6th graders), L1, ESL, all English

4. Spanish-speaking students’ ESL/English & Spanish reading instruction in an urban district (2, 3, 4th graders)

Three lines of research involved Kent School

• Kent School (390 students, 130 ELLs from 13 countries– Transitional program of study

• 30-45 minutes of L1 language instruction (Intl instructors)

• 30-160 minutes of ESL instruction (ESL/bilingual teachers)

• 105-225 minutes of all English instruction ((classroom teachers)

1. Two-year longitudinal, study of eight 1st-2nd grade Spanish-speakers (García & López-Velásquez, 1998)

(Activity setting theory, Tharp & Gallimore, 1998, and Gee’s Discourse analysis, 2002)

- Formal and informal literacy instruction

- Coordination of Spanish and ESL instruction

- Year 1-Kent School (Spring); Year 2-Laurel School

- Year 1 & 2: addtl 60 min. Sp. reading instruction

Comparison of Spanish and ESL literacy instruction (year 1)

Spanish teacher (S. A.), EdM. Bilingual ed

ESL teachers (US), certified, ESL (1), working on ESL

(2)• Cummins: introduce new concepts/activities in Sp.,

build on them in ESL

• Some overlap, but two different cultural worlds

• Spanish teacher’s instruction informed by cultural insights

Comparison of Spanish and ESL literacy instruction (Spring, year 1)

Spanish (60 min.)

• Letter names, alphabet, word reading--vowels, syllables, fluent oral reading

• Choral reading and recitation of rhymes, poems, and songs

• Charts and booklets

ESL (105 min.)

• Decoding, chunking, fluent reading of connected text--varies by group and class (1, 2)

• Separate small group instruction; content-based ESL, small group

• Lots of books (1, 2)

Spanish and ESL literacy instruction cont.

Spanish • Teacher read aloud

once/week

• L2 features

– Thematic: occupations, seasons, food sources

– Content based Sp.: integrate reading, writing, listening, speaking-theme focus

ESL • Daily teacher read aloud

(1, 2)• L2 features

– Thematic (1, 2): frogs, space (1, 2), food groups

– Content-based ESL: integrate reading, writing, listening, speaking-science focus (1, 2)

Spanish and ESL literacy instruction cont.

Spanish • L2 features cont.

– Sheltered Spanish-Gestures, drawings, illustrations, drama, physical action

– Sheltered speech-simple, clearly enunciated, and slowed speech

ESL • L2 features cont.

– Sheltered English (1, 2) Gestures, drawings, illustrations, drama, physical action

– NOT for instructions (1, 2)

– Did not shelter speech (1, 2)

Content-based ESL lesson: Thematic (1, 2)

During 90 minutes: 5 different instructional activities

– Journal writing (a pond is a home two meny animals?)

– Teacher read aloud of Where is My Duckling?

– Display of names and drawings of animals prior to continued journal writing

– Placement of magnetic animals on pond drawing (near, on, in)

– Small group reading: read-stop-read approach

Content-based ESL lesson: Thematic (1, 2)

During 90 minutes: 5 different instructional activities

– Journal writing (a pond is a home two meny animals?)

– Teacher read aloud of Where is My Duckling?

– Display of names and drawings of animals prior to continued journal writing

– Placement of magnetic animals on pond drawing (near, on, in)

– Small group reading: read-stop-read approach

Year 2 -Spanish instruction

• New school--only L2 group with high income students

• 5 students from Year 1 (14 total)

• Same Spanish teacher; new ESL teacher (3)

• More books in Spanish, but not used

• Sp--still whole class instruction, focus on decoding, some dictated writing, no small groups/centers (S.A. influence)

• Some coordination with all-English classes but not ESL

Year 2 -ESL instruction

• Reading groups (2) for 60 min.

• Content-based ESL (science/social studies) for 45 min.-develops oral vocabulary, reading, writing

• Writing to enter into reading (LEA)

• Teaches grammar through reading and based on journal writing

• Tapes the books and sends home books and tapes

• May use Spanish, check out Eng. & Sp. books

Year 2 - Performance

Spanish rdg English

*Ignacio strongest LS+ CR (2) LW

*Felipe strong FS CR LW

*José weak LS CR LW

María weak LS LR LW

Miguel non-reader FS LR LW

Year 2 -ESL instruction

• “The ones who can read well and who have a lot of vocabulary [in Spanish] , they do a lot better….”

• “The free writing, that’s really hard for them, they do better with directed, ok, tell me this, and they’ll write it down.”

• 3rd grade recommendation: Ignacio and Felipe out of ESL except for 60 min. of ESL reading instruction.

2. Two Turkish first graders’ oral language and literacy instruction and development (Camlibel, 2005)

Cognitive, linguistic, and sociocultural perspectives

L1, ESL, all English classrooms at Kent (Feb-June)

Researcher directed summer tasks

Turkish literacy in L1:

Turkish instructional materials

Emphasis on alphabet, decoding, chunking

Reading extended text

Turkish students

• Both had problems with differences in alphabet

• Both had limited participation in all English class

• ESL classroom a haven

• Alp

– high participation in ESL

– high oral English proficiency

– could not decode in Turkish/English

– remedial” reading instruction of limited help (monolingual)

– Kindergarten in US (lacked metalinguistic awareness)

Turkish students cont.

• Zehrah

– limited participant in ESL

– learned to decode in Turkish/English

– higher English reading than oral English proficiency

– kindergarten in Turkey

– did not separate literacy by context

Combined Findings for 1st and 2nd graders

• Some students benefit from simultaneous instruction; others don’t (L1 early literacy? Long term problems?)

• Benefit from content-based instruction on a theme that integrates reading, writing, speaking, listening

• Need sheltered English, even for seatwork

• Need better coordination between L1 and ESL instruction

• Only Spanish teacher emphasized students’ cultures

• Need more equitable funding, instructional time, personnel

3. Mandarin and Spanish speakers’ writing instruction and development (McCarthey &

García, 2005; McCarthey, et al., 2004) Sociocultural, literate and cultural identities

Two year longitudinal study

6 Mandarin and 5 Spanish speakers

4 schools (Kent School-Spring, year 1)

3 L1 classes, 2 ESL, 4 all English classrooms (Yr 1)

Home and School (Yr 2)

Year 1: Kent School

• Similar type of content based ESL instruction

• ESL (1): Use writing to document and summarize science experiments

• ESL (1): Book reports

• ESL (4): Not hands on science, but content based

• Allow L1 oral use; L1 aide

• Limited use of process writing approach

Year 1 cont.

• Journal writing (initially draw a picture, describe in L1- 4)

• Students did not always understand purpose of writing assignments

• 30 additional minutes of reading/writing for beginners and advanced ELLs (4)

• L1 classrooms:

– Traditional instruction to prevent language loss

– Required district writing (helped with L1 writing)

Literacy Performance

Susie 3rd 3rd-LES 4th-CEW 4th-4.9

Ch-Ming 4th 4th-NES 4th-NEW 4th-3.7

Paul 3rd 5th-LES 4th-LEW 5th-8.2

W-Hsien 5th 5th-NES 5th-NEW 5th-5.6

Hui-Tzu 5th --- --- 5th-3.6

Elena 3rd 3rd-FES 4th-LEW 4th-2.2

Roberto 3rd 3rd-FES 4th-LEW 4th-4.6

Manuel 4th 5th-LES 4th-LEW

Combined Findings

• Support Collier & Thomas (1989): Immigrate at 8-9, attain grade level performance quicker than 5-6

• Students are resilient

• Benefit from content based ESL instruction with integration of reading, writing, listening, speaking

• Some students made use of L1 class for L1 writing, identity

Combined Findings

• Benefit from separate reading/writing instruction for ELLs (case study of Manuel)

– Yr 2: Placed in Title 1 at middle school

– Yr 1: read 15 books; Yr 2: 3 books

– Writing for in class assignments :

“If I had more time, I would have written other things….I did not have a lot of time to think for that…because it was class work.”

4. IES study of cognitive strategy, responsive engagement in an urban district (García, et al., in progress; García, Pearson, Taylor with Bauer & Stahl)

Mixed design

Professional staff development

Grades 2 & 3 (Spanish); Grades 4 (English-ESL/transitional)

11 of 14 teachers are Latina

Some teachers are certified; some with ESL/bilingual

Whole class, teacher directed instruction

Literacy Instruction in Urban District

• 2nd grade: 70% Spanish, 30% English >> 60% Spanish, 40% English; 4th grade: 20%, 80% >> 100%

• Not used to centers, literature circles, small groups

• Used poetry (2nd), basal (4th)

• Only English during ESL instruction (2nd and 4th)

• English immersion in bilingual classroom

– Concurrent translation

– No sheltering of English instruction

Teacher opinions/complaints

• Second graders would not orally participate in English literacy activities

• Fourth graders too dependent on teacher; would not work on own or with other students

• None/few of the students in 4th grade classrooms knew Spanish

Changes

(Culturally different from other sites)

• Students participated more when could use Spanish

• Preview/review in Spanish of English text helped

• Encouraged to shelter English

• Teachers in cognitive strategy and responsive engagement were able to conduct small groups and students participated

Instructional Implications

• English literacy instruction needs to be designed for ELLs

– Sheltered English for beginning ELLs

– Coordinated with L1 instruction

– Need to know L1 development (and culture)

– Content-based ESL very helpful but addtl literacy instruction needed

– Small group, active instruction not whole class

– Encourage use of L1 for discussion, cont. reading, etc.

• L1 literacy instruction needs to incorporate high quality literacy activities (reading and writing)

– be based on L1 structure of language, culturally responsive

– sheltered L1 not needed

– Content based instruction helpful but separate literacy instruction also needed

– Small group, active instruction, not whole class

– Needs to be coordinated with ESL instruction

– Equitably treated--personnel, time, books, training

Methodological Implications

• Value to combining qualitative findings from same sites to get wider sociocultural perspective

• Value to comparing and contrasting findings from different sites

• Trade-off, lose richness and compelling details

• BUT, can begin to address major questions regarding possible variability in student performance, best practices, etc.